Training for development An evaluation of the Kathmandu University – Community Education Project

Background:

The Project named ‘Kathmandu University Community Education Project’ (KU CEP) intends to reach to the rural communities through the university outreach programme in the field of education, community development and business incubation.

The project is a partnership between Kathmandu University (KU) and HimalPartner, and was started in 2010 (planning) and implemented in its pilot phase in 2011-2012. It has been further extended till a project within the period of 2013-2015 through a widening scope of activities and geographical areas with funding through HimalPartner.

It is time to do an overall evaluation of the project period 2013-2015 to assess whether or not KU CEP has achieved what it was set out to accomplish and what the impact has been. The project was intended to end in 2015, but KU has applied HimalPartner/Digni for one year extension for the CEP project in 2016.

Due to the earthquake and KUs role organizing volunteers in the aftermath and using the skills and resources available for relief work they plan to continue to contribute in the rebuilding phase with offering relevant services in cooperation the affected communities

Purpose/objective

Assess the impact of the project on the students, faculties and educational programmes at KU (internal), on the target communities (external) and make recommendations for the follow-up.

Methodology

The evaluation process has consisted of a desktop study of all available written documentation, interviews with key individuals and a community field visit.

Key findings

1. The most serious shortcoming for the project is the lack of a good monitoring system. This has led to an uncertainty in project objectives, lack of data in terms of goals fulfilment and a serious uncertainty in terms of the effects in the communities of both good and bad. This requires immediate attention.
2. Out of the three legs of the project; community development, community learning (for students) and incubation, it is the community learning leg that has been most successful. The students are very satisfied, there are reasons to believe the impact has been good and there is an increasing acceptance at KU that this is a good and useful project. Doing these kinds of field trips can as an added value, contribute to the development of communities, but that should not be the goal. Facilitating field trips and keep a close look at the project to ensure that no harm is done is probably a better approach
3. The incubation leg is not a natural part of the project. Only 30% of all the projects in KU-CEP are product development, and out of these only a handful are admitted in the business incubation center. In other words, a very limited number of students from KU-CEP that benefits from the incubation.

Recommendations

1. Establish a systemized monitoring and evaluation system. 
   This is the most serious shortcoming of the project. Defining a good system here will be important, not only for potential donors, but for the continuous development of the project and for KU to utilize the academic potential in it.
   
   
2. Reduce the ambitions on community development and incubation. 
   These two elements are the most complicated ones in the project, and the ones that benefits the lowest numbers of students. It is also the riskiest parts of the project. Incubation should be extracted from this project and community development should be considered an added value more than a goal. The focus should be on facilitating good, useful and inspirational field experiences for the students.
   
   
3. Do no harm 
   No matter the ambitions for community development, one has to put in place a system for «do no harm», targeting both the management of the project and for the students.
   
   
4. Ensure that the project is included in the academic calendar.